No, we are NOT building the wall.

[Daryl Hunt]

Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization

See, had you READ the posts I alluded to, I specifically commented on this. Just for shits and giggles, let's review it YET AGAIN (already asked and answered in my posts.) Stay with me and then answer me. Here is the quote from that section that is important:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.

1) This section openly admits that the Constitution does not give an explicit power to admit or deny admission of non citizens

2) When the Constitution does not give a power, that power rests with the states and / or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment

3) If you can show me where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court "plenary power" I'll eat a copy of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court gave themselves that power. It's all about control.

ALL of this is addressed in that previous thread going into the history of it all the way to the present day. The United States Supreme Court is playing a game of semantics and if you bother to READ the links I left, you begin to get the picture.

The United States Supreme Court has exclusive power over immigration. But what IS immigration?

Why is Building the Wall Wrong? See post 4581

The reality is, the argument is not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase the question. Either you believe in the Rule of Law or you don't.

So, why do you think that prior to 1875 the states had state immigration commissioners? Those people had no authority over naturalization. It's simply that we are applying immigration laws to laws in commerce. Congress has no authority to tell a state who may come there and work as a Guest Worker - a foreigner who does NOT seek citizenship is not covered in the Constitution as subject to immigration laws because they do not intend to become naturalized.

Show me where the Constitution gave the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant or claim plenary power over any issue not mentioned in the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment. Oh that's right... you stumble over simple links.

What you want to know WAS asked and answered. You're either stupid, lazy, a liar, or playing a head game. Now that you've been shown you're rehashing old news, it's time to pull your head out of your ass and provide a counter argument NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED.

Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!

You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.

The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

I somewhat agree with you. But in the past, an employer would sponsor in workers and get them work visas, pick them up, house them, feed them and pay them. At the end of the season, the Employer would make sure they were sent back to the border so they could go home with the money they earned (and they paid taxes) to their families in Mexico. What the hell happened to that program anyway?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

See, had you READ the posts I alluded to, I specifically commented on this. Just for shits and giggles, let's review it YET AGAIN (already asked and answered in my posts.) Stay with me and then answer me. Here is the quote from that section that is important:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.

1) This section openly admits that the Constitution does not give an explicit power to admit or deny admission of non citizens

2) When the Constitution does not give a power, that power rests with the states and / or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment

3) If you can show me where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court "plenary power" I'll eat a copy of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court gave themselves that power. It's all about control.

ALL of this is addressed in that previous thread going into the history of it all the way to the present day. The United States Supreme Court is playing a game of semantics and if you bother to READ the links I left, you begin to get the picture.

The United States Supreme Court has exclusive power over immigration. But what IS immigration?

Why is Building the Wall Wrong? See post 4581

The reality is, the argument is not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase the question. Either you believe in the Rule of Law or you don't.

So, why do you think that prior to 1875 the states had state immigration commissioners? Those people had no authority over naturalization. It's simply that we are applying immigration laws to laws in commerce. Congress has no authority to tell a state who may come there and work as a Guest Worker - a foreigner who does NOT seek citizenship is not covered in the Constitution as subject to immigration laws because they do not intend to become naturalized.

Show me where the Constitution gave the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant or claim plenary power over any issue not mentioned in the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment. Oh that's right... you stumble over simple links.

What you want to know WAS asked and answered. You're either stupid, lazy, a liar, or playing a head game. Now that you've been shown you're rehashing old news, it's time to pull your head out of your ass and provide a counter argument NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED.

Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!

You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.

The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

So I didn't think your post that wasn't bolded had "relevance" but you thought that posting the same thing again...only this time bolding it would change my mind? LOL REALLY?

I'm not trying to change your mind. You post your facts; I'll post mine. If there is a point I want to stress or bring attention I can bold it. People do it verbally, so why do you have a problem with it?

A couple is arguing and one person stresses the word never. Verbally, they put special emphasis on it. So do I. I'm not bolding everything I say or trying to double its font size, mix colors and some of the more elaborate stuff you see.

I quoted a source. You quoted it for what you thought were facts in your favor, ignoring the relevant facts of my citation. I brought it to the attention of other posters here that so they could see the FACTS I relied on. In the instant case:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.

That is what the article I quoted says. It is a fact and if you dispute it, you should find something in the Constitution to counter it with. If not, we move forward. You don't have to believe me; you don't have to accept the facts; you say you don't see it that way, If you cannot sustain your position, I'm content to allow those on ALL sides of the issue to decide on the merits of the argument presented.

Meanwhile, while you and I are arguing over non-essentials, there has to be that one guy out there scratching his head, asking even if my facts are accurate, what difference does it make? But, I suspect that even you MIGHT know the answer to that. THAT is the reason we're in this side argument. The Declaration of Independence says that "truths are self evident." There is no requirement that you accept them. AND, you're not the only person on this thread. But, back to the point. A German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once observed:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

You have violently opposed my views; lied about them; misrepresented them; ridiculed them. You have shown FEAR that a position you don't understand might actually be considered. Not once have I done the same to you. IF the Constitution gave a power to the United States Supreme Court you claim it does, you should find some basis in fact for it. But, if the move is unconstitutional, you should oppose it, not embrace it, no matter what the promised benefit to you is.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If we can't stop the anchor babies and the illegal migrants we need to stop the Federal handouts.

It would be easier to get a constitutional amendment to do that and it could be done faster.

really you think the Liberals would vote for it?
You are insane if that is what you think.

Thirty years ago I would have (actually a few times did) bet my life that the right wouldn't take a giant shit on the Constitution and adopt virtually every plank of the Socialist Party Platform.

Yet they did exactly that... go figure.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If we can't stop the anchor babies and the illegal migrants we need to stop the Federal handouts.

It would be easier to get a constitutional amendment to do that and it could be done faster.

really you think the Liberals would vote for it?
You are insane if that is what you think.

Thirty years ago I would have (actually a few times did) bet my life that the right wouldn't take a giant shit on the Constitution and adopt virtually every plank of the Socialist Party Platform.

Yet they did exactly that... go figure.

It's all up to interpretation. The latest thing I have seen that is a complete afront to the Constitution of the United States is a "President" acting like a King ignoring the laws passed by the Congress. Like the laws or not, those are the laws. If you don't like them, get them changed. But NO one person is above the law. If this is allowed to stand then all hell breaks loose as it sets some very dangerous precedence for the next President regardless of party or the year they take office.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

See, had you READ the posts I alluded to, I specifically commented on this. Just for shits and giggles, let's review it YET AGAIN (already asked and answered in my posts.) Stay with me and then answer me. Here is the quote from that section that is important:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.

1) This section openly admits that the Constitution does not give an explicit power to admit or deny admission of non citizens

2) When the Constitution does not give a power, that power rests with the states and / or the people. Read the Tenth Amendment

3) If you can show me where the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court "plenary power" I'll eat a copy of the Constitution. The United States Supreme Court gave themselves that power. It's all about control.

ALL of this is addressed in that previous thread going into the history of it all the way to the present day. The United States Supreme Court is playing a game of semantics and if you bother to READ the links I left, you begin to get the picture.

The United States Supreme Court has exclusive power over immigration. But what IS immigration?

Why is Building the Wall Wrong? See post 4581

The reality is, the argument is not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase the question. Either you believe in the Rule of Law or you don't.

So, why do you think that prior to 1875 the states had state immigration commissioners? Those people had no authority over naturalization. It's simply that we are applying immigration laws to laws in commerce. Congress has no authority to tell a state who may come there and work as a Guest Worker - a foreigner who does NOT seek citizenship is not covered in the Constitution as subject to immigration laws because they do not intend to become naturalized.

Show me where the Constitution gave the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant or claim plenary power over any issue not mentioned in the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment. Oh that's right... you stumble over simple links.

What you want to know WAS asked and answered. You're either stupid, lazy, a liar, or playing a head game. Now that you've been shown you're rehashing old news, it's time to pull your head out of your ass and provide a counter argument NOT ALREADY DISCUSSED.

Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!

You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.

The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

I somewhat agree with you. But in the past, an employer would sponsor in workers and get them work visas, pick them up, house them, feed them and pay them. At the end of the season, the Employer would make sure they were sent back to the border so they could go home with the money they earned (and they paid taxes) to their families in Mexico. What the hell happened to that program anyway?

Prior to 1875 the states did have control over who came and went. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship was the exclusive domain of Congress. Then the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress. The problem is, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant ANY OTHER branch of government any powers (especially exclusive powers.) And so we lumped Guest Workers into the same pot as immigrants seeking permanent residence, thereby creating this flustercuck. Now, we are trying to give temporary workers the benefits and privileges of citizenship while ignoring the simplest solution.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If we can't stop the anchor babies and the illegal migrants we need to stop the Federal handouts.

It would be easier to get a constitutional amendment to do that and it could be done faster.

really you think the Liberals would vote for it?
You are insane if that is what you think.

Thirty years ago I would have (actually a few times did) bet my life that the right wouldn't take a giant shit on the Constitution and adopt virtually every plank of the Socialist Party Platform.

Yet they did exactly that... go figure.

It's all up to interpretation. The latest thing I have seen that is a complete afront to the Constitution of the United States is a "President" acting like a King ignoring the laws passed by the Congress. Like the laws or not, those are the laws. If you don't like them, get them changed. But NO one person is above the law. If this is allowed to stand then all hell breaks loose as it sets some very dangerous precedence for the next President regardless of party or the year they take office.

You are absolutely right. Our government was based on checks and balances. Today, if the United States Supreme Court don't like their own decisions, they get to reconsider their interpretation. What was perfectly legal today is illegal tomorrow - all because some unelected bureaucrat decreed it from the Supreme Court.

When the president don't like the agreement agreed to by the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, he abuses the power of calling for a national emergency. He rules by Executive fiat.

What purpose does the House and Senate serve now? When the liberals get into power, what stops them from total gun control because of a mass shooting or maybe going after an unpopular political group for offending the masses? We used to understand that the concept of checks and balances existed for a reason.

 

[Oldstyle]

Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!

You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.

The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

So I didn't think your post that wasn't bolded had "relevance" but you thought that posting the same thing again...only this time bolding it would change my mind? LOL REALLY?

I'm not trying to change your mind. You post your facts; I'll post mine. If there is a point I want to stress or bring attention I can bold it. People do it verbally, so why do you have a problem with it?

A couple is arguing and one person stresses the word never. Verbally, they put special emphasis on it. So do I. I'm not bolding everything I say or trying to double its font size, mix colors and some of the more elaborate stuff you see.

I quoted a source. You quoted it for what you thought were facts in your favor, ignoring the relevant facts of my citation. I brought it to the attention of other posters here that so they could see the FACTS I relied on. In the instant case:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.

That is what the article I quoted says. It is a fact and if you dispute it, you should find something in the Constitution to counter it with. If not, we move forward. You don't have to believe me; you don't have to accept the facts; you say you don't see it that way, If you cannot sustain your position, I'm content to allow those on ALL sides of the issue to decide on the merits of the argument presented.

Meanwhile, while you and I are arguing over non-essentials, there has to be that one guy out there scratching his head, asking even if my facts are accurate, what difference does it make? But, I suspect that even you MIGHT know the answer to that. THAT is the reason we're in this side argument. The Declaration of Independence says that "truths are self evident." There is no requirement that you accept them. AND, you're not the only person on this thread. But, back to the point. A German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once observed:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

You have violently opposed my views; lied about them; misrepresented them; ridiculed them. You have shown FEAR that a position you don't understand might actually be considered. Not once have I done the same to you. IF the Constitution gave a power to the United States Supreme Court you claim it does, you should find some basis in fact for it. But, if the move is unconstitutional, you should oppose it, not embrace it, no matter what the promised benefit to you is.

I "violently" opposed your views? What did I do...hold a gun to their heads? I disagreed with you and you called me a motherfucking liar and a prick! So tell me, Porter...who's the one who "violently" disagrees with others on this board...you or I?

I understand the why people bold things...what I don't understand is why you think making an argument that doesn't impress others will suddenly do so because you put the same argument in BOLD? That's pathetically stupid!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here's the way it works, Porter. As legal issues come up over time...such as the issue of who to let in and who not to let in...and who has the responsibility for making that call...the Supreme Court gives us their interpretation of the existing laws. In the case of immigration...it wasn't something that the Founding Fathers or the framers of the Constitution cared about. The more the merrier might as well have been the rule of law back then! We had land to expand into and "manifest destiny" was our driving force. That ceased to be the case at some point and it was recognized that we had to reach a consensus on immigration. That was done by Congress enacting laws and the Supreme Court giving us their interpretations of those laws. For you to claim that because the Constitution doesn't specifically address immigration that the Supreme Court has no authority to interpret immigration law is quite frankly laughable!

You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.

The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

I somewhat agree with you. But in the past, an employer would sponsor in workers and get them work visas, pick them up, house them, feed them and pay them. At the end of the season, the Employer would make sure they were sent back to the border so they could go home with the money they earned (and they paid taxes) to their families in Mexico. What the hell happened to that program anyway?

Prior to 1875 the states did have control over who came and went. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship was the exclusive domain of Congress. Then the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress. The problem is, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant ANY OTHER branch of government any powers (especially exclusive powers.) And so we lumped Guest Workers into the same pot as immigrants seeking permanent residence, thereby creating this flustercuck. Now, we are trying to give temporary workers the benefits and privileges of citizenship while ignoring the simplest solution.

Okay, maybe we need to turn the clock back.

In Olathe Colorado, the Veggie Growers cry their little hearts out that they don't have enough facilities for the migrant workers. In the old days, the Growers provided housing.

Those same "Farmers" complain they can't get enough workers. In the old days, they would have an employee head to the border at a entry point, pick out workers, sign them in, get them work visas, drive them back up north, house them, feed them, pay them and at the end of the season, they would put them back on the bus and drive them back to the border where they would exit the bus directly into the entry/exit point and go home to their families and homes. There was no overstaying the work visas. These were family men and women looking to feed their families in Mexico. There was no reason for them to sneak them across the border and go into hiding.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.

The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

So I didn't think your post that wasn't bolded had "relevance" but you thought that posting the same thing again...only this time bolding it would change my mind? LOL REALLY?

I'm not trying to change your mind. You post your facts; I'll post mine. If there is a point I want to stress or bring attention I can bold it. People do it verbally, so why do you have a problem with it?

A couple is arguing and one person stresses the word never. Verbally, they put special emphasis on it. So do I. I'm not bolding everything I say or trying to double its font size, mix colors and some of the more elaborate stuff you see.

I quoted a source. You quoted it for what you thought were facts in your favor, ignoring the relevant facts of my citation. I brought it to the attention of other posters here that so they could see the FACTS I relied on. In the instant case:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.

That is what the article I quoted says. It is a fact and if you dispute it, you should find something in the Constitution to counter it with. If not, we move forward. You don't have to believe me; you don't have to accept the facts; you say you don't see it that way, If you cannot sustain your position, I'm content to allow those on ALL sides of the issue to decide on the merits of the argument presented.

Meanwhile, while you and I are arguing over non-essentials, there has to be that one guy out there scratching his head, asking even if my facts are accurate, what difference does it make? But, I suspect that even you MIGHT know the answer to that. THAT is the reason we're in this side argument. The Declaration of Independence says that "truths are self evident." There is no requirement that you accept them. AND, you're not the only person on this thread. But, back to the point. A German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once observed:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

You have violently opposed my views; lied about them; misrepresented them; ridiculed them. You have shown FEAR that a position you don't understand might actually be considered. Not once have I done the same to you. IF the Constitution gave a power to the United States Supreme Court you claim it does, you should find some basis in fact for it. But, if the move is unconstitutional, you should oppose it, not embrace it, no matter what the promised benefit to you is.

I "violently" opposed your views? What did I do...hold a gun to their heads? I disagreed with you and you called me a motherfucking liar and a prick! So tell me, Porter...who's the one who "violently" disagrees with others on this board...you or I?

I understand the why people bold things...what I don't understand is why you think making an argument that doesn't impress others will suddenly do so because you put the same argument in BOLD? That's pathetically stupid!

Are you really that much of a megalomaniac? Do you think YOU are the only poster that reads my posts? You really think God chose YOU to read my posts and report to other posters what I just said?

Let us suppose that we were all in a group in a room - all of us physically present and you opened up on me like you did with that first post you did on this thread. What do you think would have been the most logical outcome of such a meeting?

You can lie all you want. I enter a thread and play nice. Read this entire thread, not just the posts you like to keep cherry picking. Be honest. Read the thread. How long does it take before the build the wall extremists come unglued and start hurling accusations? WHO was the first of any side to start that tone on this thread? You jump into the midst of a heated battle, start LYING about me and then expect you should consider yourself a victim???? Are you kidding or are you really that stupid? You're no victim. You had a duty to read the thread before interjecting your views, aiming a lie at someone that is already under attack.

Yes, Oldstyle, when you jumped into the fray, you became part and parcel of those violently opposed to allowing me the luxury of posting facts here. Adding insult to injury, you will make every post from here on out about YOU. You don't have the stomach for the truth. You are a Democrat that thinks if you filibuster the personality contest to death, you can avoid the FACTS. You're counting on the mass hysteria to keep us from discussing what the actual OP started this thread about. From this point, forward it will be me v. you in your version of a popularity contest. Nothing however will erase the fact that your first words directed at me were, in fact, a lie.

Will you now move forward and discuss the OP? I think not. I think you'll come back, unable to admit that what you did was wrong and you got pretty much what you deserved. You'll want me to be the bad guy because in your warped thinking, this is all about YOU and your fragile ego. The next thread you participate on, you should have this little piece of advice:

"He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him" Proverbs 18: 13

Next time, read the thread BEFORE embarrassing yourself.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are an arrogant prick and nobody can have a discussion with you.

The founders dealt with people who came and went within the states that were foreigners, but would never become citizens. Had they wanted to grant the United States Supreme Court a power over those people, they would have. They did not, but the states were left to decide the issue of non-citizens. NON-CITIZENS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IMMIGRATION SINCE THE PEOPLE IN QUESTION ARE NOT AND DO NOT WANT TO COME HERE FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

Immigration is people leaving their home country to enter another for the purpose of PERMANENT RESIDENCE. Look it up in a legal dictionary. People coming here to work should not be subject to immigration laws. You should not be forced to become a citizen in order to do business in the U.S. It should be regulated as a function of Interstate Commerce.

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

I somewhat agree with you. But in the past, an employer would sponsor in workers and get them work visas, pick them up, house them, feed them and pay them. At the end of the season, the Employer would make sure they were sent back to the border so they could go home with the money they earned (and they paid taxes) to their families in Mexico. What the hell happened to that program anyway?

Prior to 1875 the states did have control over who came and went. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship was the exclusive domain of Congress. Then the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress. The problem is, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant ANY OTHER branch of government any powers (especially exclusive powers.) And so we lumped Guest Workers into the same pot as immigrants seeking permanent residence, thereby creating this flustercuck. Now, we are trying to give temporary workers the benefits and privileges of citizenship while ignoring the simplest solution.

Okay, maybe we need to turn the clock back.

In Olathe Colorado, the Veggie Growers cry their little hearts out that they don't have enough facilities for the migrant workers. In the old days, the Growers provided housing.

Those same "Farmers" complain they can't get enough workers. In the old days, they would have an employee head to the border at a entry point, pick out workers, sign them in, get them work visas, drive them back up north, house them, feed them, pay them and at the end of the season, they would put them back on the bus and drive them back to the border where they would exit the bus directly into the entry/exit point and go home to their families and homes. There was no overstaying the work visas. These were family men and women looking to feed their families in Mexico. There was no reason for them to sneak them across the border and go into hiding.

Here, in Georgia, the growers pay $11 an hour plus room and board. A couple of years ago one farmer advertised with the Georgia State Employment Service where all those who are drawing an unemployment check from the state are required to register and actively seek a job. He advertised in a local paper. He put up signs in town. He even advertised on Craigslist. He offered his last year's workers a bonus to bring someone with them.

On the day he opened for business, only half of the workers he needed showed up. A local newsman was doing a story about it for local tv news. Of those who showed, four Americans showed up. Two of those were gone before noon. The farmer could not get enough workers as the yearly quota of visas was exhausted by April. As the farmer said in the interview, he did not know how he was supposed to determine the weather and crop yield a year in advance.

 

[Oldstyle]

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

So I didn't think your post that wasn't bolded had "relevance" but you thought that posting the same thing again...only this time bolding it would change my mind? LOL REALLY?

I'm not trying to change your mind. You post your facts; I'll post mine. If there is a point I want to stress or bring attention I can bold it. People do it verbally, so why do you have a problem with it?

A couple is arguing and one person stresses the word never. Verbally, they put special emphasis on it. So do I. I'm not bolding everything I say or trying to double its font size, mix colors and some of the more elaborate stuff you see.

I quoted a source. You quoted it for what you thought were facts in your favor, ignoring the relevant facts of my citation. I brought it to the attention of other posters here that so they could see the FACTS I relied on. In the instant case:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.

That is what the article I quoted says. It is a fact and if you dispute it, you should find something in the Constitution to counter it with. If not, we move forward. You don't have to believe me; you don't have to accept the facts; you say you don't see it that way, If you cannot sustain your position, I'm content to allow those on ALL sides of the issue to decide on the merits of the argument presented.

Meanwhile, while you and I are arguing over non-essentials, there has to be that one guy out there scratching his head, asking even if my facts are accurate, what difference does it make? But, I suspect that even you MIGHT know the answer to that. THAT is the reason we're in this side argument. The Declaration of Independence says that "truths are self evident." There is no requirement that you accept them. AND, you're not the only person on this thread. But, back to the point. A German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once observed:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

You have violently opposed my views; lied about them; misrepresented them; ridiculed them. You have shown FEAR that a position you don't understand might actually be considered. Not once have I done the same to you. IF the Constitution gave a power to the United States Supreme Court you claim it does, you should find some basis in fact for it. But, if the move is unconstitutional, you should oppose it, not embrace it, no matter what the promised benefit to you is.

I "violently" opposed your views? What did I do...hold a gun to their heads? I disagreed with you and you called me a motherfucking liar and a prick! So tell me, Porter...who's the one who "violently" disagrees with others on this board...you or I?

I understand the why people bold things...what I don't understand is why you think making an argument that doesn't impress others will suddenly do so because you put the same argument in BOLD? That's pathetically stupid!

Are you really that much of a megalomaniac? Do you think YOU are the only poster that reads my posts? You really think God chose YOU to read my posts and report to other posters what I just said?

Let us suppose that we were all in a group in a room - all of us physically present and you opened up on me like you did with that first post you did on this thread. What do you think would have been the most logical outcome of such a meeting?

You can lie all you want. I enter a thread and play nice. Read this entire thread, not just the posts you like to keep cherry picking. Be honest. Read the thread. How long does it take before the build the wall extremists come unglued and start hurling accusations? WHO was the first of any side to start that tone on this thread? You jump into the midst of a heated battle, start LYING about me and then expect you should consider yourself a victim???? Are you kidding or are you really that stupid? You're no victim. You had a duty to read the thread before interjecting your views, aiming a lie at someone that is already under attack.

Yes, Oldstyle, when you jumped into the fray, you became part and parcel of those violently opposed to allowing me the luxury of posting facts here. Adding insult to injury, you will make every post from here on out about YOU. You don't have the stomach for the truth. You are a Democrat that thinks if you filibuster the personality contest to death, you can avoid the FACTS. You're counting on the mass hysteria to keep us from discussing what the actual OP started this thread about. From this point, forward it will be me v. you in your version of a popularity contest. Nothing however will erase the fact that your first words directed at me were, in fact, a lie.

Will you now move forward and discuss the OP? I think not. I think you'll come back, unable to admit that what you did was wrong and you got pretty much what you deserved. You'll want me to be the bad guy because in your warped thinking, this is all about YOU and your fragile ego. The next thread you participate on, you should have this little piece of advice:

"He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him" Proverbs 18: 13

Next time, read the thread BEFORE embarrassing yourself.

Let's see...if we were sitting in that room...you made a statement...I responded by saying I didn't agree with you...and you called me a "mother fucking liar" and a "prick"? They'd be calling an ambulance for someone and my guess is that it wouldn't be me! Here's the thing, Porter...if some other person gave you a hard time before I got there...you've got no excuse at all treating me that way...especially accusing ME of being violent towards you when it was you that lost your shit!

I'm a Democrat? Wow...did you ever guess wrong on that one, Sparky!

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

So I didn't think your post that wasn't bolded had "relevance" but you thought that posting the same thing again...only this time bolding it would change my mind? LOL REALLY?

I'm not trying to change your mind. You post your facts; I'll post mine. If there is a point I want to stress or bring attention I can bold it. People do it verbally, so why do you have a problem with it?

A couple is arguing and one person stresses the word never. Verbally, they put special emphasis on it. So do I. I'm not bolding everything I say or trying to double its font size, mix colors and some of the more elaborate stuff you see.

I quoted a source. You quoted it for what you thought were facts in your favor, ignoring the relevant facts of my citation. I brought it to the attention of other posters here that so they could see the FACTS I relied on. In the instant case:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.

That is what the article I quoted says. It is a fact and if you dispute it, you should find something in the Constitution to counter it with. If not, we move forward. You don't have to believe me; you don't have to accept the facts; you say you don't see it that way, If you cannot sustain your position, I'm content to allow those on ALL sides of the issue to decide on the merits of the argument presented.

Meanwhile, while you and I are arguing over non-essentials, there has to be that one guy out there scratching his head, asking even if my facts are accurate, what difference does it make? But, I suspect that even you MIGHT know the answer to that. THAT is the reason we're in this side argument. The Declaration of Independence says that "truths are self evident." There is no requirement that you accept them. AND, you're not the only person on this thread. But, back to the point. A German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once observed:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

You have violently opposed my views; lied about them; misrepresented them; ridiculed them. You have shown FEAR that a position you don't understand might actually be considered. Not once have I done the same to you. IF the Constitution gave a power to the United States Supreme Court you claim it does, you should find some basis in fact for it. But, if the move is unconstitutional, you should oppose it, not embrace it, no matter what the promised benefit to you is.

I "violently" opposed your views? What did I do...hold a gun to their heads? I disagreed with you and you called me a motherfucking liar and a prick! So tell me, Porter...who's the one who "violently" disagrees with others on this board...you or I?

I understand the why people bold things...what I don't understand is why you think making an argument that doesn't impress others will suddenly do so because you put the same argument in BOLD? That's pathetically stupid!

Are you really that much of a megalomaniac? Do you think YOU are the only poster that reads my posts? You really think God chose YOU to read my posts and report to other posters what I just said?

Let us suppose that we were all in a group in a room - all of us physically present and you opened up on me like you did with that first post you did on this thread. What do you think would have been the most logical outcome of such a meeting?

You can lie all you want. I enter a thread and play nice. Read this entire thread, not just the posts you like to keep cherry picking. Be honest. Read the thread. How long does it take before the build the wall extremists come unglued and start hurling accusations? WHO was the first of any side to start that tone on this thread? You jump into the midst of a heated battle, start LYING about me and then expect you should consider yourself a victim???? Are you kidding or are you really that stupid? You're no victim. You had a duty to read the thread before interjecting your views, aiming a lie at someone that is already under attack.

Yes, Oldstyle, when you jumped into the fray, you became part and parcel of those violently opposed to allowing me the luxury of posting facts here. Adding insult to injury, you will make every post from here on out about YOU. You don't have the stomach for the truth. You are a Democrat that thinks if you filibuster the personality contest to death, you can avoid the FACTS. You're counting on the mass hysteria to keep us from discussing what the actual OP started this thread about. From this point, forward it will be me v. you in your version of a popularity contest. Nothing however will erase the fact that your first words directed at me were, in fact, a lie.

Will you now move forward and discuss the OP? I think not. I think you'll come back, unable to admit that what you did was wrong and you got pretty much what you deserved. You'll want me to be the bad guy because in your warped thinking, this is all about YOU and your fragile ego. The next thread you participate on, you should have this little piece of advice:

"He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him" Proverbs 18: 13

Next time, read the thread BEFORE embarrassing yourself.

Let's see...if we were sitting in that room...you made a statement...I responded by saying I didn't agree with you...and you called me a "mother fucking liar" and a "prick"? They'd be calling an ambulance for someone and my guess is that it wouldn't be me! Here's the thing, Porter...if some other person gave you a hard time before I got there...you've got no excuse at all treating me that way...especially accusing ME of being violent towards you when it was you that lost your shit!

I'm a Democrat? Wow...did you ever guess wrong on that one, Sparky!

All I can say is, it's too bad that we were not in a room and you tried to lie about me when you don't know me. My "shit" was lost before you came onto this thread. You did yourself NO favors by lying about me with your first post. You might want to stop and think before pecking your keyboard the next time.

You may want to rethink your line of thought there chief. If you walk into an ongoing fight and start taking sides, LYING about one of the participants, things might not work out the way you think they will. When Republicans lie and do so knowingly, they are generally RINOs.

I don't have you pegged wrong. I told you this was a thread about a silly wall, but you would derail the thread to try and have a personality contest. Instead of letting it go and moving on with the relevant conversation, you're back proving me right again. Democrat. If you weren't you could move forward with the wall conversation and save the chest thumping for PM. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your ego on this thread. Might as well make it a private matter. Give the posters a break.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

I somewhat agree with you. But in the past, an employer would sponsor in workers and get them work visas, pick them up, house them, feed them and pay them. At the end of the season, the Employer would make sure they were sent back to the border so they could go home with the money they earned (and they paid taxes) to their families in Mexico. What the hell happened to that program anyway?

Prior to 1875 the states did have control over who came and went. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship was the exclusive domain of Congress. Then the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress. The problem is, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant ANY OTHER branch of government any powers (especially exclusive powers.) And so we lumped Guest Workers into the same pot as immigrants seeking permanent residence, thereby creating this flustercuck. Now, we are trying to give temporary workers the benefits and privileges of citizenship while ignoring the simplest solution.

Okay, maybe we need to turn the clock back.

In Olathe Colorado, the Veggie Growers cry their little hearts out that they don't have enough facilities for the migrant workers. In the old days, the Growers provided housing.

Those same "Farmers" complain they can't get enough workers. In the old days, they would have an employee head to the border at a entry point, pick out workers, sign them in, get them work visas, drive them back up north, house them, feed them, pay them and at the end of the season, they would put them back on the bus and drive them back to the border where they would exit the bus directly into the entry/exit point and go home to their families and homes. There was no overstaying the work visas. These were family men and women looking to feed their families in Mexico. There was no reason for them to sneak them across the border and go into hiding.

Here, in Georgia, the growers pay $11 an hour plus room and board. A couple of years ago one farmer advertised with the Georgia State Employment Service where all those who are drawing an unemployment check from the state are required to register and actively seek a job. He advertised in a local paper. He put up signs in town. He even advertised on Craigslist. He offered his last year's workers a bonus to bring someone with them.

On the day he opened for business, only half of the workers he needed showed up. A local newsman was doing a story about it for local tv news. Of those who showed, four Americans showed up. Two of those were gone before noon. The farmer could not get enough workers as the yearly quota of visas was exhausted by April. As the farmer said in the interview, he did not know how he was supposed to determine the weather and crop yield a year in advance.

He need the old option of sponsoring in people right on the border, taking responability for their welfare, transporation etc. like they use to do including housing. He could pay them minimum wage and they would work their asses off for them and be glad to go have him drive them back to the border along with thier newly aquired riches so they could go home. It seems that the employers have forgotten how do to that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

I somewhat agree with you. But in the past, an employer would sponsor in workers and get them work visas, pick them up, house them, feed them and pay them. At the end of the season, the Employer would make sure they were sent back to the border so they could go home with the money they earned (and they paid taxes) to their families in Mexico. What the hell happened to that program anyway?

Prior to 1875 the states did have control over who came and went. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship was the exclusive domain of Congress. Then the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress. The problem is, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant ANY OTHER branch of government any powers (especially exclusive powers.) And so we lumped Guest Workers into the same pot as immigrants seeking permanent residence, thereby creating this flustercuck. Now, we are trying to give temporary workers the benefits and privileges of citizenship while ignoring the simplest solution.

Okay, maybe we need to turn the clock back.

In Olathe Colorado, the Veggie Growers cry their little hearts out that they don't have enough facilities for the migrant workers. In the old days, the Growers provided housing.

Those same "Farmers" complain they can't get enough workers. In the old days, they would have an employee head to the border at a entry point, pick out workers, sign them in, get them work visas, drive them back up north, house them, feed them, pay them and at the end of the season, they would put them back on the bus and drive them back to the border where they would exit the bus directly into the entry/exit point and go home to their families and homes. There was no overstaying the work visas. These were family men and women looking to feed their families in Mexico. There was no reason for them to sneak them across the border and go into hiding.

Here, in Georgia, the growers pay $11 an hour plus room and board. A couple of years ago one farmer advertised with the Georgia State Employment Service where all those who are drawing an unemployment check from the state are required to register and actively seek a job. He advertised in a local paper. He put up signs in town. He even advertised on Craigslist. He offered his last year's workers a bonus to bring someone with them.

On the day he opened for business, only half of the workers he needed showed up. A local newsman was doing a story about it for local tv news. Of those who showed, four Americans showed up. Two of those were gone before noon. The farmer could not get enough workers as the yearly quota of visas was exhausted by April. As the farmer said in the interview, he did not know how he was supposed to determine the weather and crop yield a year in advance.

He need the old option of sponsoring in people right on the border, taking responability for their welfare, transporation etc. like they use to do including housing. He could pay them minimum wage and they would work their asses off for them and be glad to go have him drive them back to the border along with thier newly aquired riches so they could go home. It seems that the employers have forgotten how do to that.

Unless you are a major corporation, that is impractical. There is nothing that prevents people, constitutionally speaking, that allows people to come through the United States. Liberty is an unalienable Right. All the federal government can logically do is regulate the flow.

 

[LilOlLady]

Dumbass Nancy Pelosi argues that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S. ... More reason to build the damn wall. If gun violence is a national emergency so is the border because 2000 guns are smuggled across the border into Mexico each day. The reason we have illegal border crossing is because of the gun violence crime in Mexico.
Mexican National Security Commissioner Renato Sales has revealed that 2,000 guns manufactured in the United States are smuggled to Mexican cartels and criminals on a daily basis, significantly increasing violence and unrest in the Central American country.
'2,000 US-made guns smuggled into Mexico everyday'
'Open border is the cause and effect for the crime in this country and in Mexico. Secure border protects us and Mexico. Build the fucking wall. asap

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I somewhat agree with you. But in the past, an employer would sponsor in workers and get them work visas, pick them up, house them, feed them and pay them. At the end of the season, the Employer would make sure they were sent back to the border so they could go home with the money they earned (and they paid taxes) to their families in Mexico. What the hell happened to that program anyway?

Prior to 1875 the states did have control over who came and went. Immigration / Naturalization / Citizenship was the exclusive domain of Congress. Then the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress. The problem is, NOTHING in the Constitution gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant ANY OTHER branch of government any powers (especially exclusive powers.) And so we lumped Guest Workers into the same pot as immigrants seeking permanent residence, thereby creating this flustercuck. Now, we are trying to give temporary workers the benefits and privileges of citizenship while ignoring the simplest solution.

Okay, maybe we need to turn the clock back.

In Olathe Colorado, the Veggie Growers cry their little hearts out that they don't have enough facilities for the migrant workers. In the old days, the Growers provided housing.

Those same "Farmers" complain they can't get enough workers. In the old days, they would have an employee head to the border at a entry point, pick out workers, sign them in, get them work visas, drive them back up north, house them, feed them, pay them and at the end of the season, they would put them back on the bus and drive them back to the border where they would exit the bus directly into the entry/exit point and go home to their families and homes. There was no overstaying the work visas. These were family men and women looking to feed their families in Mexico. There was no reason for them to sneak them across the border and go into hiding.

Here, in Georgia, the growers pay $11 an hour plus room and board. A couple of years ago one farmer advertised with the Georgia State Employment Service where all those who are drawing an unemployment check from the state are required to register and actively seek a job. He advertised in a local paper. He put up signs in town. He even advertised on Craigslist. He offered his last year's workers a bonus to bring someone with them.

On the day he opened for business, only half of the workers he needed showed up. A local newsman was doing a story about it for local tv news. Of those who showed, four Americans showed up. Two of those were gone before noon. The farmer could not get enough workers as the yearly quota of visas was exhausted by April. As the farmer said in the interview, he did not know how he was supposed to determine the weather and crop yield a year in advance.

He need the old option of sponsoring in people right on the border, taking responability for their welfare, transporation etc. like they use to do including housing. He could pay them minimum wage and they would work their asses off for them and be glad to go have him drive them back to the border along with thier newly aquired riches so they could go home. It seems that the employers have forgotten how do to that.

Unless you are a major corporation, that is impractical. There is nothing that prevents people, constitutionally speaking, that allows people to come through the United States. Liberty is an unalienable Right. All the federal government can logically do is regulate the flow.

If I have 1400 acres of produce then I would be considered a major corporation. Okay, not a Corporation if it is a family owned but it's large enough to be treated as such. That requires a huge (hugely to the strumpets) amount of seasonal manpower. There can be a contract or agreement setup with the Feds in order to facilitate this type of program. This means that the illegals don't have a reason to cross illegally anymore. And then we can turn ICE loose to make the illegals and those companies that pay them under the tables life a living hell. You want to stop illegal immigration, this is how it used to be done before it got so damned complicated. Sometimes the old ways are the best.

 

[Slyhunter]

Arrogant prick? Back to your "nice" posts again I see... (eye roll) Let me know when that whole "nice" thing happens, Porter!

So what do you call it when people come here to work and don't leave for decades? Of course people coming here to work should be subject to immigration laws...that doesn't mean they need to become permanent citizens but they need to have the correct visas to come here and work and when those visas expire they need to extend them or leave. No one has the right to work in the US. It's a privilege granted to foreigners by the US.

Let me guess...you're one of those people that thinks BOLD FACING your posts makes them more powerful? Like THAT'S going to win the argument?

1) I bold words and ideas that are the main part of the subject. That way people don't stray off topic over a side comment or other idea that is not a part of the topic. It helps to illustrate a point. For instance, you quoted what I said as if it had no relevance, forcing me to respond back and show you that what I quoted stated that the Constitution gives no express authority over non-citizens

2) The Chinese built the Transcontinental Railway without the luxury of citizenship

3) You still cannot change the meaning of the word NOR the idea. Immigration is when a person comes here for the purpose of permanent residence. In order to live here permanently, you have to be naturalized. If they aren't going to be naturalized, the immigration laws should NOT be applied. It isn't within the purview of the Constitution. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."

How about that? I italicized the quote for you so you could tell it was not my words. Anyway, by subjecting Guest Workers to immigration laws, you get to whine and groan about things that would otherwise BE OFF THE TABLE like welfare, a free education, and the privileges of citizenship. But there is an element that does not want to resolve the issue. They need it, much like Al Sharpton and Stacey Abrams need the race issue to brood over.

4) Guest Workers are better regulated via Interstate Commerce laws. Congress CAN regulate the flow of people coming and going within our borders without having to deal with the pretexts you put on the table. Since there would be an orderly flow, no quota system to contend with, no tax money or benefits of citizenship being given to non-citizens, and employers being able to hire whomever they choose, you might just become a rebel without a cause

5) The current immigration laws, passed by liberals, were designed to implode. Those laws do not anticipate the changes in society nor the way we utilize labor. If you make it a commerce issue and offer tax incentives for employers that hire an all American staff, it takes all these other issues off the table.

Trying to make this issue something it is not is causing the right to lose and lose every time in courts where the activists don't understand the laws of this country. It is the peripheral issues used as a pretext to enforce the immigration laws that are destroying the Republic.

So I didn't think your post that wasn't bolded had "relevance" but you thought that posting the same thing again...only this time bolding it would change my mind? LOL REALLY?

I'm not trying to change your mind. You post your facts; I'll post mine. If there is a point I want to stress or bring attention I can bold it. People do it verbally, so why do you have a problem with it?

A couple is arguing and one person stresses the word never. Verbally, they put special emphasis on it. So do I. I'm not bolding everything I say or trying to double its font size, mix colors and some of the more elaborate stuff you see.

I quoted a source. You quoted it for what you thought were facts in your favor, ignoring the relevant facts of my citation. I brought it to the attention of other posters here that so they could see the FACTS I relied on. In the instant case:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.

That is what the article I quoted says. It is a fact and if you dispute it, you should find something in the Constitution to counter it with. If not, we move forward. You don't have to believe me; you don't have to accept the facts; you say you don't see it that way, If you cannot sustain your position, I'm content to allow those on ALL sides of the issue to decide on the merits of the argument presented.

Meanwhile, while you and I are arguing over non-essentials, there has to be that one guy out there scratching his head, asking even if my facts are accurate, what difference does it make? But, I suspect that even you MIGHT know the answer to that. THAT is the reason we're in this side argument. The Declaration of Independence says that "truths are self evident." There is no requirement that you accept them. AND, you're not the only person on this thread. But, back to the point. A German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once observed:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

You have violently opposed my views; lied about them; misrepresented them; ridiculed them. You have shown FEAR that a position you don't understand might actually be considered. Not once have I done the same to you. IF the Constitution gave a power to the United States Supreme Court you claim it does, you should find some basis in fact for it. But, if the move is unconstitutional, you should oppose it, not embrace it, no matter what the promised benefit to you is.

I "violently" opposed your views? What did I do...hold a gun to their heads? I disagreed with you and you called me a motherfucking liar and a prick! So tell me, Porter...who's the one who "violently" disagrees with others on this board...you or I?

I understand the why people bold things...what I don't understand is why you think making an argument that doesn't impress others will suddenly do so because you put the same argument in BOLD? That's pathetically stupid!

Are you really that much of a megalomaniac? Do you think YOU are the only poster that reads my posts? You really think God chose YOU to read my posts and report to other posters what I just said?

Let us suppose that we were all in a group in a room - all of us physically present and you opened up on me like you did with that first post you did on this thread. What do you think would have been the most logical outcome of such a meeting?

You use too many words to say so little.

 

[Oldstyle]

So I didn't think your post that wasn't bolded had "relevance" but you thought that posting the same thing again...only this time bolding it would change my mind? LOL REALLY?

I'm not trying to change your mind. You post your facts; I'll post mine. If there is a point I want to stress or bring attention I can bold it. People do it verbally, so why do you have a problem with it?

A couple is arguing and one person stresses the word never. Verbally, they put special emphasis on it. So do I. I'm not bolding everything I say or trying to double its font size, mix colors and some of the more elaborate stuff you see.

I quoted a source. You quoted it for what you thought were facts in your favor, ignoring the relevant facts of my citation. I brought it to the attention of other posters here that so they could see the FACTS I relied on. In the instant case:

The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments.

That is what the article I quoted says. It is a fact and if you dispute it, you should find something in the Constitution to counter it with. If not, we move forward. You don't have to believe me; you don't have to accept the facts; you say you don't see it that way, If you cannot sustain your position, I'm content to allow those on ALL sides of the issue to decide on the merits of the argument presented.

Meanwhile, while you and I are arguing over non-essentials, there has to be that one guy out there scratching his head, asking even if my facts are accurate, what difference does it make? But, I suspect that even you MIGHT know the answer to that. THAT is the reason we're in this side argument. The Declaration of Independence says that "truths are self evident." There is no requirement that you accept them. AND, you're not the only person on this thread. But, back to the point. A German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer once observed:

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

You have violently opposed my views; lied about them; misrepresented them; ridiculed them. You have shown FEAR that a position you don't understand might actually be considered. Not once have I done the same to you. IF the Constitution gave a power to the United States Supreme Court you claim it does, you should find some basis in fact for it. But, if the move is unconstitutional, you should oppose it, not embrace it, no matter what the promised benefit to you is.

I "violently" opposed your views? What did I do...hold a gun to their heads? I disagreed with you and you called me a motherfucking liar and a prick! So tell me, Porter...who's the one who "violently" disagrees with others on this board...you or I?

I understand the why people bold things...what I don't understand is why you think making an argument that doesn't impress others will suddenly do so because you put the same argument in BOLD? That's pathetically stupid!

Are you really that much of a megalomaniac? Do you think YOU are the only poster that reads my posts? You really think God chose YOU to read my posts and report to other posters what I just said?

Let us suppose that we were all in a group in a room - all of us physically present and you opened up on me like you did with that first post you did on this thread. What do you think would have been the most logical outcome of such a meeting?

You can lie all you want. I enter a thread and play nice. Read this entire thread, not just the posts you like to keep cherry picking. Be honest. Read the thread. How long does it take before the build the wall extremists come unglued and start hurling accusations? WHO was the first of any side to start that tone on this thread? You jump into the midst of a heated battle, start LYING about me and then expect you should consider yourself a victim???? Are you kidding or are you really that stupid? You're no victim. You had a duty to read the thread before interjecting your views, aiming a lie at someone that is already under attack.

Yes, Oldstyle, when you jumped into the fray, you became part and parcel of those violently opposed to allowing me the luxury of posting facts here. Adding insult to injury, you will make every post from here on out about YOU. You don't have the stomach for the truth. You are a Democrat that thinks if you filibuster the personality contest to death, you can avoid the FACTS. You're counting on the mass hysteria to keep us from discussing what the actual OP started this thread about. From this point, forward it will be me v. you in your version of a popularity contest. Nothing however will erase the fact that your first words directed at me were, in fact, a lie.

Will you now move forward and discuss the OP? I think not. I think you'll come back, unable to admit that what you did was wrong and you got pretty much what you deserved. You'll want me to be the bad guy because in your warped thinking, this is all about YOU and your fragile ego. The next thread you participate on, you should have this little piece of advice:

"He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him" Proverbs 18: 13

Next time, read the thread BEFORE embarrassing yourself.

Let's see...if we were sitting in that room...you made a statement...I responded by saying I didn't agree with you...and you called me a "mother fucking liar" and a "prick"? They'd be calling an ambulance for someone and my guess is that it wouldn't be me! Here's the thing, Porter...if some other person gave you a hard time before I got there...you've got no excuse at all treating me that way...especially accusing ME of being violent towards you when it was you that lost your shit!

I'm a Democrat? Wow...did you ever guess wrong on that one, Sparky!

All I can say is, it's too bad that we were not in a room and you tried to lie about me when you don't know me. My "shit" was lost before you came onto this thread. You did yourself NO favors by lying about me with your first post. You might want to stop and think before pecking your keyboard the next time.

You may want to rethink your line of thought there chief. If you walk into an ongoing fight and start taking sides, LYING about one of the participants, things might not work out the way you think they will. When Republicans lie and do so knowingly, they are generally RINOs.

I don't have you pegged wrong. I told you this was a thread about a silly wall, but you would derail the thread to try and have a personality contest. Instead of letting it go and moving on with the relevant conversation, you're back proving me right again. Democrat. If you weren't you could move forward with the wall conversation and save the chest thumping for PM. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your ego on this thread. Might as well make it a private matter. Give the posters a break.

I'm not a Democrat, Porter. Your continuing to call me one simply illustrates how clueless you really are!

 

[LilOlLady]

We have a lot of problems in this country that need attention but to say we need them more than a secure border is like fixing one problem and ignoring the others. Some have a domino effect that one exacerbate the other or others. Drugs and gun crimes go hand in hand as the cause of many other problems. Incarcerations, separating families and social services are affected by drugs and drug-related crimes. Drugs are crossing our border.
This table organizes convictions of criminal aliens by type of criminal conduct. Because some criminal aliens may be convicted of multiple criminal offenses, total convictions listed below exceed the total arrests noted in the table above.
Criminal Alien Statistics - FY2018 | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Dumbass Nancy Pelosi argues that the real national emergency is not illegal border crossings, but gun violence in the U.S. ... More reason to build the damn wall. If gun violence is a national emergency so is the border because 2000 guns are smuggled across the border into Mexico each day. The reason we have illegal border crossing is because of the gun violence crime in Mexico.
Mexican National Security Commissioner Renato Sales has revealed that 2,000 guns manufactured in the United States are smuggled to Mexican cartels and criminals on a daily basis, significantly increasing violence and unrest in the Central American country.
'2,000 US-made guns smuggled into Mexico everyday'
'Open border is the cause and effect for the crime in this country and in Mexico. Secure border protects us and Mexico. Build the fucking wall. asap

Nancy Pelosi has duly noted that if Trump has a national emergency over immigration, the next liberal president can outlaw firearms and declare a national emergency due to a mass shooting. If that happens, we can thank you for the assault on the Second Amendment.